Vol. 28 No. 1
I move for permission to introduce a
Bill entitled an Act to postpone further elections to local authorities in the county and city of Dublin heretofore postponed by the Local Elections (Dissolved Authorities) Act, 1926, and the Local Elections Act, 1927, respectively.
We do not desire to give any facility for the introduction of this Bill. Repeatedly in this House promises have been made that the Bill to deal with the local government situation in Dublin would be introduced. Last year and the year before on more than one occasion promises were made that this Bill would be introduced at an early date. Last year we thrashed out the matter here at some length, and a very definite promise was given by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that the Local Government Bill for Dublin would be in time to enable elections to be held and perhaps the Municipal Council of Dublin or of Greater Dublin to be elected in the month of June of this year. That promise is being broken. I take it when a Bill of this kind is introduced that the Bill for the arrangement of the local government in Dublin will not be introduced, and certainly cannot be passed in time to enable elections to be held in accordance with the promises of last year. We think that there has been too much shilly-shallying with this Greater Dublin question. It is a matter of importance, we all admit, but the Report has now been in the hands of the Executive Council, and of the Department primarily concerned, for a sufficiently long time for that body to have made up its mind as to what its policy with regard to Dublin City should be. We think it would be better if this House would agree to refuse permission for the introduction of this Bill, and thus force the Local Government Department and the Executive Council to come forward with considered proposals for the municipal administration of the affairs of Dublin City and County. At any rate, as the only form of protest against putting back this Bill, putting back the question of the restoration of the municipality of Dublin, we have decided that we must not vote to give leave for the introduction of this Bill.
Deputies will admit that a Bill dealing with Greater Dublin would be a Bill having very much more involved in it than there was involved in the Cork Bill. The Cork Bill dealt with a simple alteration in the administration. The Greater Dublin Bill means an extension of the boundary and several other matters connected with it, alteration in the administration and so forth. The Cork measure has occupied a very considerable time in this House and, as a result, I suppose, of some members of the Party opposite getting elected to the other House, it has had a chequered career in that House and has been delayed accordingly. Two questions arise for the consideration at the moment on the speech of Deputy O'Kelly. The first is: Is the Dublin Council more important than the Greater Dublin measure? I think not.
Where is the measure?
If the Minister were in a position to introduce it at the moment it would not pass the Oireachtas in time to allow for the elections to be held in June.
If it were on the Order Paper our attitude to this Bill might be different. There is no sign of the measure being introduced yet.
I am quite prepared to accept that statement. It is a very remarkable statement and it does the Deputy credit.
Will it be introduced this year?
I believe it will be introduced in the session after the Easter adjournment. It would require to be introduced for many reasons, if it is to be introduced at all, before the fall of the year. I am speaking from information which I got in connection with the matter some time ago. I am not speaking ex cathedra, as the Minister stated. I say the Greater Dublin measure ought to be introduced before the new Council is elected.
I think we would want something definite.
I am telling the Deputy definitely that the measure will be introduced this year. I expect it will be introduced shortly after the Easter adjournment. I would say to Deputy Lemass, as a Dublin citizen I could not stand for making an alteration in the administration of that most important city, Cork, and not doing the same for Dublin City.
You have the Report for three years.
Deputy Flinn will appreciate the force of that remark. The question really at issue is, is a municipal council, with the old powers, more important than the Greater Dublin measure, even assuming for the moment that the Greater Dublin measure were to be delayed until the last day of the session? I believe that the experience of the administration of the Cork Bill when it becomes an Act will be of immense value in the consideration of the Dublin measure.
Is it a fact that you have the Report of the Greater Dublin Commission in hands, and probably under consideration, for close on three years?
I do not think it is so long.
Did I understand the President to say that he was going to wait until he had experience of the operation of the Cork measure?
Not experience, just for a short period.
Just a sort of donkey's gallop.
I would not apply that to Cork City.
I am not applying it to Cork. The point seems to be that there appears to be consistent evasion of this issue and it is time it was brought to a head.
